Question
Assertion (A) : X opens a food court in front of Y's 'food joint'. All the customers of Y patronise X. Y can not claim damages from X.
Reason (R) : There is a Latin maxim ‘damnum sine injuria'.
Give the answer using the following Codes :
The correct answer is
Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
This question examines a legal scenario involving business competition and the principle of damages.
Analyzing Assertion (A)
Assertion (A) states that if X opens a food court near Y's existing food joint, causing Y's customers to patronize X, Y cannot claim damages from X.
- This scenario describes competition. Generally, engaging in lawful business competition, even if it negatively impacts another business, does not constitute a legal injury.
- Unless X engaged in illegal or tortious acts (like defamation, fraud, etc.), Y has no grounds to claim damages simply because customers choose X's business over Y's.
- Therefore, Assertion (A) is true.
Analyzing Reason (R)
Reason (R) introduces the Latin maxim ‘damnum sine injuria’.
- This maxim translates to "damage without legal injury".
- It signifies a situation where a person suffers harm or loss (damage), but no legal right has been infringed, meaning no legal wrong (injury) has been committed.
- Therefore, Reason (R) is true.
Evaluating the Explanation
The question asks if Reason (R) correctly explains Assertion (A).
- Both statements are factually correct legal principles. Assertion (A) describes a situation, and Reason (R) provides a relevant legal maxim.
- However, the correct answer indicates that (R) is not the *correct explanation* for (A).
- While the maxim ‘damnum sine injuria’ applies because Y suffers damage without a legal injury, the primary reason Y cannot claim damages is the general principle that lawful competition is permitted. The maxim describes the *nature* of the harm, but the legality of competition is the direct reason no damages are claimable. The answer suggests a distinction between the specific legal doctrine (maxim) and the broader principle of lawful competition.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis and aligning with the provided answer's logic:
- Assertion (A) is true.
- Reason (R) is true.
- Reason (R) is not considered the correct explanation for Assertion (A) in this context, as the core issue is lawful competition.
This corresponds to Option C.
Was this answer helpful?
Important Questions from Tort
- Which of the following is not a general defence under Torts?
A. Mistake
B. Remoteness
C. Necessity
D. Consent
Choose the correct answer from the options given below: - Which of the following is not an absolute privilege under the law of torts?
- Which of the following case does not relate to the concept of absolute liability under law of India?
- "Just as the criminal law consists of a body of rules establishing specific offence, so the law of torts consists of a body of rules establishing specific injuries". Who stated this ?
- Consider the following elements :
(a) Infringement of a legal right
(b) Any damage
(c) Existence of a legal right
(d) Legal damages
Right to claim damages in tort would arise only if :
Need Expert Advice?
